ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2026
Development and validation of a natural language processing system to assess quality of physician communication in prostate cancer consultations.
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scoring Physician Risk Communication in Prostate Cancer Using Large Language Models.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2026Article
- Scoring Physician Risk Communication in Prostate Cancer Using Large Language Models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAUA guidelines for shared decision making (SDM) in prostate cancer recommend discussion of five content areas in consultations: (1) cancer severity (tumor risk (TR), pathology results (PR)); (2) life expectancy (LE); (3) cancer prognosis (CP); (4) baseline urinary and erectile function (UF and EF); and (5) treatment side effects (erectile dysfunction (ED), urinary incontinence (UI), and irritative urinary symptoms (LUTS)). However, patient retention of information after the visit and inconsistent risk communication by physicians are barriers to informed SDM. We sought to develop natural language processing (NLP) models based on recorded consultations to provide key information to patients and audit quality of physician communication.
methodsWe used 50 consultation transcripts to train and validate NLP models to identify sentences related to key concepts. We then tested whether communication quality across entire consultations could be determined by sentences with the highest model-predicted topic concordance in 20 separate consultation transcripts.
resultsOur development dataset included 28,927 total sentences, with 75% reserved for training and 25% for internal validation. The Random Forest model had the highest accuracy for identifying topic-concordant sentences, with area under the curve 0.98, 0.94, 0.89, 0.92, 0.84, 0.96, 0.98, 0.97, and 0.99 for TR, PR, LE, CP, UF, EF, ED, UI, and LUTS compared with manual coding across all concepts in the internal validation dataset. In 20 separate consultations, the top 10 model-identified sentences correctly graded communication quality across entire consultations with accuracies of 100%, 90%, 95%, 95%, 80%, 95%, 85%, 100%, and 95% for TR, PR, LE, CP, UF, EF, ED, UI, and LUTS compared with manual coding, respectively.
conclusionsNLP models accurately capture key information and grade quality of physician communication in prostate cancer consultations, providing the foundation for scalable quality assessment of risk communication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.